Wilkie-v-Howard: who's the villain, who's the hero?

G'Day. The leak of Andrew Wilkie's top secret report on Iraq for the Office of National Assessments sets the scene for a sensational week's Parliament when combined with revelations over the weekend that British intelligence warned Tony Blair weeks before we invaded Iraq that war would hurt the cause of fighting terrorism, not help it (Australia was told: war will fuel terror). That is the same message Wilkie gave the Australian people when he resigned from ONA before the war. Wilkie accused Howard of lying to the Australian people about the reasons he wanted to invade Iraq, and Howard's been trying to destroy Wilkie's credibility ever since.

Tonight the story so far, as told by Labor's best Senate prosecutors, Labor Senate leader John Faulkner and former defence minister Robert Ray, and defence spokesman Chris Evans. For the defence, West Australian roughie David Johnston, who smeared Wilkie with venomous zeal without addressing the issue, and moderate NSW Senator Marise Payne, who did her best under impossible circumstances. Howard, of course, later distanced himself from Johnston's remarks. That's his style - play reasonable statesman to one constituency while setting the dogs loose to get the real message across.

Big problem: We now know the unstable, odious Wilkie sang the same song as Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee. What sort of man would ignore such intelligence and send us to war regardless? Maybe Andrew Wilkie is a hero.

The Debate took place last Wednesday.

Senator FAULKNER, NSW, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate

I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Defence (Senator Hill) to questions without notice asked by Senators Faulkner, Ray and Evans today relating to the release of confidential documents.

I remind the Senate of the chronology of the leak of this ONA document classified Top Secret AUSTEO.

On June 19 this year, former ONA analyst Andrew Wilkie gave evidence to the United Kingdom Foreign Affairs Select Committee on weapons of mass destruction. His appearance received a great deal of publicity in the Australian media. Around this time someone - I believe from within government - accessed from ONA on a return and burn basis that highly classified, top secret AUSTEO codeword document and it was provided to Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt. I believe that the motivation was to discredit Wilkie.

On Monday, 23 June, Mr Bolt admitted in his Herald Sun article that he was going through the only secret report that Wilkie ever wrote about Iraq. On 9 July Wilkie wrote to the Prime Minister about his concern over this leak of classified information. The Prime Minister's office replied almost four weeks later on 31 July, stating that Wilkie's concerns had been flicked to the Office of National Assessments.

On 6 August ONA wrote to Wilkie stating that they had referred the Bolt article to the police. (Margo: ONA referred the security breach to the AFP on July 4.) It is now 10 September, nine weeks later, and the police still have not made up their mind whether they will launch a full investigation into this matter.

In parliament yesterday Mr Howard said, Oh well, it is all okay because no intelligence material related to national security was published, and that that was the heart of the issue. That is very cynical spin from the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister knows it.

At the heart of the issue, to use the Prime Minister's words, is a flagrant breach of national security, a failure to investigate, covering up, using our security agencies for purposes outside their charters and passing a document that contains highly classified material - perhaps material from overseas intelligence sources without their clearance - to a journalist.

On the face of it, this is an extraordinarily serious breach of national security, covered by provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. It is a crime.

As always, the government has us and them standards. If the late Merv Jenkins is suspected of leaking, the goons and the heavies come down on him like a ton of bricks, but if Andrew Bolt admits to having a classified document he is not even interviewed nine weeks later. Any other Australian would find themselves in a small dark room with a very bright light focused on their faces, but not Mr Bolt or anybody associated with this serious leak. This government has a tradition of brazenly abusing security agencies for political purposes.

We in the opposition say this: the full force of the law should come down on that person, or those persons, responsible for leaking that document and having that document or information contained within it supplied to Mr Bolt.

The full force of the law should come down on any senior member of government who was in on this dirty little fix. That is in the interests of national security, that is the task in front of this government, that is the task in front of the Australian Federal Police; and this opposition will hold the government accountable on this important matter.

***

Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia)

This government will be accountable. This is the weakest, most pathetic beat-up that Senator Faulkner has been involved in since I have been in this chamber. He has sought to say that he believes the document was provided and he says perhaps involving foreign governments. This is an insult to our intelligence. He has not got a single, solitary, decent, respectable fact. He simply wants to protect his latest hero in this very dishonourable affair of a senior, allegedly ABC classified intelligence officer jumping ship and seeking to make a media career out of his former employment as a public servant.

How dishonourable and reprehensible, and I am very surprised that you would deal with such a person as this man is evolving to be. Who is he and what was he? He has sought to make mileage from his very respected and cloistered position as a fourth grade operative in the ONA. Briefing Channel 9 over the weekend, as he did, before he announced his resignation, he orchestrated the media. How low can you go?

And Senator Faulkner wants to champion this man as some sort of saviour of the Labor Party. He is just reprehensible. Everything that has been said of him is what he has said in The Bulletin and what he has said in the Financial Review in his very flagrant, extravagant and outrageous performances, where he has sought to orchestrate the whole thing to grab himself some sort of peculiar notoriety.

He did not even work in the Iraq section. He has gone to Channel 9 and told them before he even had the courtesy to announce to his employer that he was going to jump ship. He has orchestrated this whole thing to get some sort of grandiose self-enrichment from the process. And everything he said is contradictory. In the Financial Review of 12 March he is quoted as saying:

There is no doubt they being Iraq have chemical and biological weapons, but their program now is disjointed and limited.

So he is acknowledging that they have chemical and biological weapons. That is his story. He said in The Bulletin that Saddam could create a humanitarian disaster and he could do it with weapons of mass destruction. Talking about coalition forces, he said in The Bulletin that Iraq could overwhelm them with hundreds of thousands of refugees. This man is incongruous, inconsistent and unreliable and is the latest saviour for the opposition. It is a very sorry, sad situation.

Let us talk about the Andrew Bolt article of 13 March 2003 (incorrect - it was on June 23) when that journalist said:

More importantly, in saying why he opposes war, Wilkie not only badly contradicts himself but admits we should be scared of Iraq. He says that Iraq does not pose a security threat but then says Iraq, as a rogue state, should worry us as a potential source of weapons to terrorists.

Where is this man coming from? He is very unstable. At the very best, he is unreliable; at worst, he is flaky and irrational, and this is the person Senator Faulkner is pinning his hopes on in this beat-up.

***

Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria)

It is almost beyond belief that the government have been so indolent on the leaking of an ONA document classified top secret. When it came to Merv Jenkins or Trent Smith, they could not have acted more quickly to send in the investigators. Countless interviews were held, phone records were searched and suspects were browbeaten. Yet we now have the circumstance of a journalist acknowledging that he had possession of an ONA document marked top secret, and the AFP are still considering whether to have an investigation - just considering. (Margo: The AFP told me the next day: "Following a thorough evaluation, the AFP moved into investigation phase yesterday.")

It has been 48 days since the publication of extracts of an ONA document and still we do not have a full investigation. Why has the Prime Minister been asleep at the wheel?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister ran the astounding argument that he had been assured that there was nothing of a national security nature in Bolt's article. This is just pathetic dissembling. The document is marked 'Top secret AUSTEO'. Its unauthorised disclosure is a breach of the Crimes Act. The document is protected in its entirety. It is not okay to leak or have published parts of it that you decide have no national security implications.

ONA has in place a whole range of document-handling procedures designed to protect its material. Identifiers are placed in every document so as to trace leaks. ONA follows a return and burn policy so that every document is properly tracked. What we want to know is this: was ONA asked to provide a copy of Mr Wilkies December 2002 ONA report to any ministers office, government department or government agency just prior to the disclosures that appeared in the Herald Sun of 23 June this year?

Let us be clear about this. If a ministers office is found to have disclosed this material to an unauthorised recipient - that is, a journalist - then that minister must be sacked. It is that serious. In our Westminster system, we extend trust to ministers to properly handle security matters, but they have a duty to abide by the rules. Seeking retaliation, which the Prime Minister has asserted as a right of government, can never extend to the use of a top-secret document to

discredit a government critic.

I am not a fan of Wilkie - that is known - but I do not believe he has done anything illegal, nor have I heard anyone from the government accuse him of illegality. There is no doubt that Andrew Bolt, in quoting slabs from an ONA document classified top secret, has breached national security. Having received the document, it was his obligation to immediately return it and report the matter to the authorities.

It is now Andrew Bolts duty to put his loyalty to Australia ahead of his loyalty to the coalition government and tell us whether the ONA document was supplied to him by a minister's office, a government department or a government agency. If he wants to argue that he is bound not to disclose his source, he should be willing to go to jail for his beliefs.

We know that most of our analysis and intelligence on Iraq comes from our overseas intelligence partners. It is given to us on the basis that it will not be disclosed. If any of the material finds its way into the hands of an unauthorised recipient, we must immediately inform our intelligence partners.

It is time for the government to front up honestly on this issue. If they know who leaked this, they should come clean, because if they try to cover it up, that would be far worse than the initial sin.

If security agencies believe they are at risk, that their political masters will leak sensitive and secret material, then they will feel inhibited in future from passing on vital information. We will all be the losers if that is the case.

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales)

I agree with all of the previous speakers on this motion to note that these are very serious matters for the Senate and I believe they are being treated as such. The Minister for Defence and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, indicated in question time that a very serious response is being undertaken by the government, that the Australian Federal Police are in the course of pursuing an investigation.

I will say - nobody else has made this observation to my recollection - I stand to be corrected - that I believe the AFP will conduct their investigation with absolute priority, with absolute diligence and with no adversion in that process to any of the political to-ing and fro-ing that goes on in this place, and I am completely confident of that.

In response to questions asked of him today, the minister also indicated that the approach taken by that investigation is a matter for the AFP. Most importantly, it is not a matter to which the hypotheses and extrapolations of the opposition can be applied with any seriousness whatsoever as they have been in this chamber today. I think it is a very unhelpful addition to the process to try to second-guess or double-guess or perhaps just creatively assume facts and options that might apply in this case and encourage ministers to respond to those in question time. It is not appropriate for ministers to comment on that investigation, particularly in reference to the operational matters occurring therein, and members of the Senate well know that.

I think the hypothetical extensions that we have been subjected to this afternoon show that the opposition is, at this point, really grasping at straws in the wind. This concerns me for a number of reasons - not just because they are hypothetical but because they are examples of what is now habitual offending; that is, the extraordinary politicisation of these issues over and above the pursuit of genuine efforts to look at matters of proper procedure, to look at appropriate investigation and to look at how the process is being undertaken. This politicisation goes way beyond that.

For example, in media reports earlier this week pertaining to another AFP investigation - the questioning of people like Abu Dahdah - I heard a politicisation that I had not heard before. Even the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Commissioner Keelty, commented that he was being asked questions in radio interviews that pertained to operational issues. These are questions which he is simply not able to answer - and nor should he be required to. In some ways, the opposition's pursuit, on this level, of these issues is very similar.

Senator Faulkner alleged this afternoon that there has been a failure to investigate, a covering up, and a use of agencies for inappropriate purposes - which he extrapolates as perhaps involving foreign governments, a statement which I think Senator Johnston responded to - including the passing of material to a journalist.

But the bottom line here, as the minister made quite clear in his response, is that there is an AFP inquiry proceeding. Surely that is the matter of relevance for this chamber: that the AFP are undertaking their job and their role in this process responsibly, diligently and, as I said, with the utmost propriety.

As Senator Johnston said in his remarks earlier, it seems to us that if one is so concerned about intelligence leaking, about integrity and about appropriate behaviour then one would be similarly outraged - and the opposition could employ extra mock outrage if there is any left - about the behaviour of an ONA officer in going to the media in advance of a planned resignation, briefing the media and contriving a situation around that. If you take it very seriously then I would assume that that would elicit similar outrage but apparently not.

I think we need to perhaps take a calm head in looking at these issues and take a calm head in examining them in this chamber, if that is at all possible. One would hope that in a serious parliamentary and political process - which looks at intelligence matters, which looks at security matters and which looks at matters concerning the Australian Federal Police, the ONA and all the other agencies involved - we would in fact be capable of doing that. I do not always expect the best from the opposition, and I expect to be disappointed again.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia)

I think the previous contribution by Senator Payne is somewhat startling given that she attempts to accuse the Labor Party of the politicisation of these matters when we have just had the minister responsible in this chamber, Minister Hill, admit that Minister Downers office briefed at least one Senator prior to Mr Wilkie's appearance before the committee inquiry in order to provide the Senator with material to discredit Mr Wilkies evidence.

So if she wants to talk about the independence of the process and the important role of that intelligence committee -a committee which I think is very important and has been entrusted with a degree of independence and authority - then I think we ought to look at what is really going on in terms of the politicisation of this process.

What we have heard is an admission that a Senator was briefed with material yet to be tabled, and at the moment it is unclear to us exactly what was contained in that material, but that material was used in an attempt to discredit Mr Wilkie's evidence before the parliamentary inquiry.

We also have a prime facie case that somebody leaked material to Mr Bolt, a journalist, because his article claims to have knowledge of that top-secret documentation. That is where the concern is and that is why the Labor Party legitimately raises these concerns.

What I find most galling are the double standards that apply here. I raise the investigation into Merv Jenkins in Washington as a stark contrast to the government's slowness and hesitancy in coming to grips with this matter. In terms of Mr Jenkins, within four days of agreeing to the inquiry concerning him they had an investigative team in Washington and the goons - as I think Senator Ray refers to them - were putting enormous pressure on Mr Jenkins, a loyal DIO officer and ex Army officer. He was threatened with jail and disgrace in the pursuit of their concerns about the potential leaking of confidential information.

So we see this enormous and aggressive response from the government in that case. The Blunn report said that the interview of Merv Jenkins was oppressive.

Contrast that with the governments behaviour in this case. We now have information that on 4 July ONA finally wrote to the AFP requesting that they investigate the possible disclosure of classified information. So on 23 June we had the Bolt article and then some 11 days later we had a letter - after some consultations - which sought to have that investigation launched.

But now, after nine more weeks, the minister, Senator Hill, is not quite clear whether there is really an investigation or whether they are still in a preliminary stage, having a bit of a look at whether or not an investigation may be launched. He was not at all clear about whether there is an investigation.

What we know about Merv Jenkins is that, within four days, he was in extremely oppressive interviews with officers dispatched to Washington from Australia. That was the urgency involved; that was the seriousness with which that breach was taken.

But, with the breach in relation to the Bolt article, we now have a leisurely nine weeks passing and no suggestion that anyone has been interviewed. The minister cannot really confirm whether there is going to be an investigation.

The contrast could not be more stark. There was an oppressive, urgent investigation in relation to the Merv Jenkins matter which ultimately put enough pressure on that poor man that he suicided. Yet, in the case of this very serious breach of security - this clear leaking of security information - we have this sort of leisurely, manana pace where we may be having an investigation or we may not be. Nine weeks on, what is the hurry? The minister cannot really provide any information; he is not really terribly sure.

You wonder whether the government are actually serious, whether they have any interest in getting to the bottom of this investigation and whether they have any interest in having it pursued and finding out who the culprit was, because clearly the government was involved in a campaign to discredit Mr Wilkie and clearly they are one of the most likely suspects in relation to the leaking of information to Mr Bolt. It just seems that there is no hurry and no urgency.